For millennia, people have for fished for food and for trade. Sport fishing is a more recent development, but its popularity has increased exponentially over the last few centuries.
No doubt our ancestors fought over the best bone hook and shell lure. We have come a long way, but modern fishers still argue about the perfect lure. There can be no one answer: the best lure varies depending on equipment, technique, local conditions, species, and the prey each game fish expects to find in a specific season and locale. So fishing is both an art and a science, and its practitioners arrive on the scene with a tackle box full of lures of various shapes, sizes and colors. They are always searching for something better. If money is tight, sports fishers can rationalize the modest expense of a lure as it may pay for itself by catching dinner, and commercial fishers constantly need to replace lost and worn lures. So in any economic climate, the multi-billion dollar fishing equipment business remains strong and there is a constant demand for new products. Despite the almost fifteen hundred patents entitled “fishing lure” in the U.S. patent database alone, the search continues for the ultimate lure.
Why artificial lures? While fresh bait is effective if chosen correctly, it is also perishable, bulky and messy. Artificial lures are easy to store and carry, re-usable and convenient. Some artificial lures work best if used with fresh bait, such as U.S. Pat. No. 6,108,964 to Noorlander, but most fishers prefer one or the other.
There are a number of disadvantages to the lures of the prior art. For instance, lures may attract fish but not capture or hold them. Many lures of the prior art require the user to thread the leader in and around a series of openings, and the leader crosses the lure before it is tied to the hook with a specialized knot (a “Threaded Lure”). Examples include CA Pat. Appl. Nos. 2,637,822; 2,556,726; 2,626,707; and 2,599,267 to Jones (the “Early Jones Lures”); CA Pat. Appl. No. 2,047,387 and CA Pat. No. 986,306 to Gaunt (the “306 lure”) and U.S. Pat. No. 3,685,191 to Metzger. Threading the lure is time-consuming, the leader may interfere with the action of the lure, and there is a good chance that a game fish caught on the hook will bite through the attached leader with its vicious teeth. If so, the fish, and maybe the lure, will be lost, and the hook may remain in the fish's mouth, condemning the fish to a lingering death. Some lures (i.e. Metzger's) have fixed hooks attached, which may bend and break, again allowing the fish to escape, perhaps with the hook fatally embedded in its mouth.
Threaded Lures usually cannot be used for spin-casting, another disadvantage. When the lure hits the water, the hook moves out of alignment and spoils the action. In fact, most lures designed for trolling, including the Early Jones Lures, are not suitable for spin-casting. Casting is popular with sports fishers who enjoy the challenge, cannot afford or do not want to maintain a boat, who suffer from sea-sickness, or who just like back-country hiking to remote lakes and streams. Examples of lures specifically for trolling include those described by Metzger, Gaunt, U.S. 2005/0252069 A1. to Pool & Spurgeon, U.S. Pat. No. 6,457,275 to Spurgeon, CA Pat. Appl. No. 2,681,472 to Smith & Smith and the Early Jones Lures.
Compared to flexible lures, fish are more likely to break free of the hooks of rigid lures such as those of Noorlander, Metzger, Pool & Spurgeon, Spurgeon, Smith & Smith, CA Pat. Appl. 1,228,985 to Jakeway, CA Pat. Appl. 1,191,682 to Gage, and CA Pat. Appl. 2,626,707 to Jones. Most rigid lures are metal, often subject to corrosion. However, many lures with some flex to them, such as the vintage plastic butyrate lures by Gaunt, may be more easily broken than metal lures. Lures with movable parts such as CA Pat. Appl. 2,369,775 to Knol are also at greater risk of breakage than one-piece lures.
For the sake of novelty, some lures become so complex that they are not economical, so are less likely to sell in large quantities. Examples include electric lures such as Spurgeon's which also have parts which may snap off.
Fish recognize their prey not only by sight, but also by using sensory receptors, usually on their lateral lines, to analyze vibrations that characterize the actions of specific bait fish. Game fish are more likely to strike at lures that look and move like their natural prey, but many lures in the prior art have no resemblance to any living creature. Others simply do not move naturally, such as Spurgeon's or Jakeway's. Many are designed to move in various ways which the inventors hope are reminiscent of swimming fish, such as Noorlanders, or preferably injured fish, such as Metzger's, Gaunt's, Knol's, Gage's and Batos & Lenek's, but fishers are still searching for an economical, durable, artificial lure that simulates the appearance and action of an injured bait fish to the fullest extent possible, and actually attracts and captures game fish. Not every action is attractive: some are unnatural and some frighten fish away. Some lures move so erratically or quickly that fish have trouble seizing them. The actions of prior art lures have not been self-perpetuating or dependable. Catches are often inconsistent, which is disappointing to sports fishers and devastating for guides and commercial fishers.
An injured fish often swims in a spiral, so rolling actions should often be attractive. However, lures of the prior art that roll primarily in one direction may eventually wind up the fishing line until it tangles. For that reason, few lures are purposefully designed to roll. Gaunt's 306 lure sometimes unwinds, but only randomly. Some lures that roll in only one direction include the patents to Metzger, Gage, CA Pat. No. 2,129,209 to Gabos & Olenek and one of the Early Jones Lures, CA Pat. Appl. No. 2.599,267. The other Early Jones Lures overcame the tangling disadvantage, but had other disadvantages.
The Early Jones Lures were Threaded Lures shaped like fish without fins or tails. They were concave on one side, convex on the other, arched in a single continuous curve from nose end to hook end. The belly was bigger than the back so the lure was asymmetrical. The leader-threading openings were at 45 to 60 degree angles to the concave and convex surfaces. This inventive combination resulted in a lure with a rolling action. The curve had two components, a transverse “bend” and a “twist” about the longitudinal axis. Depending on the material the lure was made from and the proportions, a specific degree of bend and twist was identified (within quite narrow parameters) that resulted in a reverse roll action described hereunder.
There were several disadvantages. None of the Early Jones Lures could be spin-cast and since they were all Threaded Lures, their fastening means were vulnerable to breakage. If the fastening means were changed, the balance and action of the lures changed, and they no longer had a reverse roll action. This problem took two years of experimentation to solve.